685 
B593 
opy 1 


THE CRITTENDEN AMENDMENT. 


DISCUSSION IN THE SENATE, 

Friday, April 2d, 1858, on the motion to nonconcur in the amendment 
of the House of Representatives to the bill to admit Kansas into the 
Union . 



DELIVERED IN UNITED STATES SENATE, APRIL 2, 1858. 


Mr. Bigler. Mr. President, I am not prepared to vote on this 
question without first submitting a few remarks explanatory of the 
views which I entertain. I do not intend to delay the Senate by an 
attempt at an argument, at length, against the House amendment; I 
shall be content to state, very briefly, some of the points which I think 
involve conclusive objections to the measure. 

In the first place, the adoption of this amendment involves an utter 
and violent abandonment of the doctrine of non-intervention. It pre¬ 
sents the broad question, whether a doctrine which the party to which 
I belong have cherished; a doctrine which is found in the organic law 
of Kansas, and which was enunciated in the democratic platform at 
Cincinnati, is to be abandoned, and we are to look for some other sys¬ 
tem of legislation with regard to the Territories. 

I had hoped, sir, that when the wise men of the country, with Clay, 
and Webster, and Cass in the lead, presented and adopted this new 
mode of setting the slavery question—the enlarged and liberal doc¬ 
trine, that when the people of the Teriitories were prepared for admis¬ 
sion as States, they should come in with or without slavery, as the con¬ 
stitution presented by them might provide at the time—it would have 
proven a finality on this question. In the liberal doctrines maintained 
by the democratic party, that the people of the several States may go 
into the Territories with whatsoever property they possess, including 
slaves, and when there, and when about to organize a government, 
preparatory to admission as a State, on terms of perfect equality with 
the other States, being left perfectly free not only as to the kind of 
government they will have, but as to the mode and manner of making 
it, I had hoped we were to find a simple and satisfactory solution of 
thi 3 unhappy difficulty which seems to arise on the application of each 
State for admission. . * 

When this doctrine was proclaimed, it was at variance with and su¬ 
perseded the former practice of the government; but it was one which 
commended itself to the judgment and patriotism of the people. It 
w T as a proposition to settle the controversy about slavery upon high 





o 


principle—sacred principle ; a principle that was coextensive in its 
operation with the entire country, with all territories we possessed 
then, or even can possess, aud as imperishable as the government itself, 
equal to every emergency that may arise. An essential element in 
that doctrine is, that Congress shall not interfere with the domestic 
affairs of the Territories; that, as to the mode and manner of making 
a government, the people of the Territories should be unrestrained ; 
that Congress would decide only upon the question of admission under 
the obligations of the constitution, and that would be on the single 
point, whether the government presented was republican in its form, 
and not as to the mode of making the constitution—leaving that work 
with the people. 

I had hoped that we were about to witness a beautiful illustration of 
the wisdom of this doctrine, by the admission of two States, the one 
slave, and the other free, under this principle. Thus its beauties 
would be illustrated and illuminated; and I tell you, Mr. President, 
that, in my humble judgment, no act of Congress would go further 
* oward restoring those relations of fraternal feeling which in the 
younger and purer days of the republic existed between the people of 
its extremities, than the consummation of such a work. Nothing, in 
my humble judgment, would tend more to give peace to this great 
country; to promote its future progress and prosperity, to give pros¬ 
perity and peace to the people of the various Territories. Sir, that is 
the doctrine of the democratic party, held by them because it is consis¬ 
tent with the constitution—consistent with the true interests of this 
great country, and with the rights of all classes of the people, and all 
sections of the Union- 

Now, sir, I regard the House proposition as direct and violent inter¬ 
vention, because it proposes to discard what the people have done and 
to institute a new mode of proceeding. It proposes*to set aside what 
the people of Kansas have done in the way of changing their govern¬ 
ment from a territorial to a State form, and to prescribe to them how 
they shall proceed hereafter in making a government. I wish to mark 
the distinction between a case where the people of a Territory have 
not acted at all, and especially where a Territory may not possess the 
usual population for a State, where their powers have rested in obey- 
ance, and where Congress volunteers to offer to those such an invita¬ 
tion to come into the Union. That we did in 1856 to the people of 
Kansas under the Toombs bill. They could hardly presume, with the 
population which they then possessed, that they would be admitted as 
a State. Congress extended an invitation to them, they having taken 
no proper legal action on the subject. It is different now. They have 
acted; they have presented themselves here with a republican form of 
government, which has come up to us through legal channels and regu¬ 
lar steps. They have exrecised the power which you gave them in the 
organic law, when you said their legislative power should extend over 
all the rightful subjects of legislation, and that the people should be 
left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in 
their own way. 


3 


But, Mr. President, if it were allowable on principle for Congress 
to remand' to the people this government which they have sent here, 
and insist upon a revision of what they have done, I could not agiee to 
the mode and manner prescribed in the House.bill. The objections I 
make ought to be more specially unpleasant to those who have opposed 
the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution than to 
those who have favored it; and why so ? Because the people are re¬ 
quired to vote under a form which deprives the free-State party of a 
fair opportunity to exercise their will. In the early part of this dis¬ 
cussion, much was made out of the form of voting presented by the 
Lecompton convention. It was said to be unfair. It was said that 
the elector, in order to vote for or against slavery, was bound to vote 
for or against the constitution ; that those, therefore, who were not 
for that constitution, had no opportunity of voting on the slavery ques¬ 
tion. I do not care now to inquire whether that view was correct and 
allowable or not; but I do say, that the presentation of the question, 
as proposed in this amendment, would be liable to quite as conclusive 
objections as the mode of voting prescribed by the Lecompton conven¬ 
tion. What is the form ? It reads thus : 

“ At the said election the votes shall ba by ballot, and by endorsing on his ballot, as 
each voter may please, « for the constitution’ or ‘ against the constitution.’ 

That form you perceive, sir, would not present to the people of Kan¬ 
sas the great question at issue there, the question which has agitated 
the country from one extremity to the other, to wit: whether Kansas 
shall be a free or a slave State. Slavery is in the constitution as it stands, 
and the question thus presented would be, whether they would have a 
slave State or no State at all. Those who desire it to be a free State 
would have no fair opportunity of carrying out their will. They are to 
be disfranchised on this vote. They can have no voice. Now, sir, if 
this measure is to be adopted, the form of voting ought to be such "as 
would give those people the opportunity of deciding, unembarrassed, the 
question of slavery which has harassed them from the first hour of their 
organization. Look at the practical workings of the proposition. An 
elector presents himself at the polls who is in favor of slavery. He sees 
that his ballot must be for or against the constitution. He desires to 
vote for slavery, but he dislikes many features of the constitution ; and 
he is driven from the polls. If a free-State man, on the other hand, 
makes his appearance, he encounters similar difficulties. He likes the 
constitution and all its features, except that of slavery. He desires to 
adopt the constitution, but he cannot do that without agreeing that Kan¬ 
sas shall be a slave State ; and he is disfranchised. Now, sir, if this 
proposition is to prevail, why put it in this shape ? Is it that there 
will be no alternative l<aft to the free-State party but to vote the con¬ 
stitution down and to secure an endorsement of the opinions of those 
who have opposed the admission of the State ? Is it to secure a rejec¬ 
tion of the President’s policy ? If I were for this measure, I should not 
agree to present it in this shape. I certainly could not, if I had stood 
so peculiary and tenaciously up to the rights of the free-State party in 
Kansas. 


4 


The form should be “ for the constitution without slavery,” or “Tor 
the constitution with slavery,” or “ against the constitution.” This 
would have given all parties a fair opportunity of carrying out their 
will. 

But, sir, there are other features to which I wish to call attention. 
The first clause reads as follows : 

“ That the State of Kansas be, and is hereby, admitted into the Union on an equal 
footing with the original States, in all respects whatever ; but inasmuch as it is great¬ 
ly disputed whether the constitution framed at Lecompton on the 7th day of November 
last, and now pending before Congress, was fairly made,” &c. 

It is a question whether the constitution was fairly made. What is 
the deduction? It must be that in some way or other the obligation 
rests upon Congress to know that the constitution is fairly made ; that 
fraud and violence shall not prevail. Now, sir, I do not care to raise 
or debate that question of fact at present. Whatever might have been 
held heretofore under the former policy of the government, I cannot see 
how those who subscribe to the doctrine that the people should be left 
perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions in their own w'ay, 
can investigate this question of fairness and form. Is it maintained 
that we sanction the constitution by voting for the admission ? That is 
not my understanding. The government which the people send here 
we must take or reject. I do not speak now of mere matters of form 
but the vital features of the government. These we cannot touch. Is 
it otherwise held anywhere ? I have not heard a senator allege that, 
by voting for the admission of Kansas, he necessarily sanctioned the 
constitution, or vice versa . 

Now, sir, the point which I wish to make is this: if Congress has no 
right to touch the work of the people of Kansas—the government which 
they have sent here—what does it concern us that we enquire how that 
work was done ? Here is a proposition simply to inquire how it was 
done; conceding that we have no power over the production itself. 
Not only that; but wdiile this constitution is to be sent back on the as¬ 
sumption that it was not fairly made, what is proposed in addition ? 
Why, sir, in case tlfts constitution be voted down, the people of Kan¬ 
sas are authorized to elect delegates to constitute a new convention ; 
they are to vote on that constitution, and then, if it be adopted, they 
become a State by the proclamation of the President. 

Where is the guarantee that that new goyernment will be made 
fairly ? Where is the protection against fraud in that process ? Who 
supervises that action ? If it is the duty of Congress, in the case of 
the Lecompton constitution, to see that it is fairly made, it is the duty 
of Congress in every other case. If it is the duty of Congress to in¬ 
quire whether this constitution has been fairly made, it is an equal 
obligation not to give the opportunity of making any constitution un¬ 
fairly. Here is a proposition to allow the people to make a govern¬ 
ment, put it in operation, and admit it into the Union, without its ever 
making its appearance before Congress at all. I do not understand 
how alleged frauds in this place can be claimed as reasons for returning 
this constitution, if we at the same time authorize the making of a 
State without any guarantee whatever as to how that power may be 
abused, without any protection against fraud, violence, and usurpation. 


5 


Then, sir, there is another point, and that is the extraordinary proposi¬ 
tion which makes the President of the United States perform functions 
which the constitution, in express words, vests in Congress. I do not 
speak now as to the government of Kansas that is before us; that we 
have seen ; that constituion we have read ; that Congress knows to be 
republican ; that we may, on certain conditions, allow the President to 
announce admitted, and hold that the State is in the Union; but it is 
to the other alternative—the right to make a constitution and State 
government, and put it in operation, and put it into the Union by a 
proclamation of the President, without ever having it before Congress 
at all—that I object. Who knows that it will be a republican govern¬ 
ment ? Who can guaranty that it will be admissible in form ? And 
if republican, may it not contain other features, making it entirely 
unacceptable? Sir, I have not that measure of confidence in the men 
who would be likely to get hold of this government in Kansas just now. 
Who is satisfied, that General Lane would exercise power with modera¬ 
tion ? Who belives that if he controlled a convention, he would not 
indulge the excesses of his feelings of prejudice against the southern 
States ? 

Sir, I should not be surprised if a constitution made in that way 
would emancipate the slaves that are in the Territory and confiscate 
the property value in them. I should not be surprised if a constitution 
made in that way, without consulting Congress, should attempt to in¬ 
terdict or embarrass the execution of the fugitive-slave law, or would 
set up other issues with the federal authority ; and yet, whilst Congress 
might not seriously entertain the idea of admitting such a State, the 
President would be obliged to admit it by proclamation. For you will 
notice that it gives the President no discretion. The duty is impera¬ 
tive on him. When the facts are properly certified, he must announce 
that the State is in the Union, no matter how objectionable the consti¬ 
tution may be. Here is State making with a vengeance. Any meas¬ 
ure of fraud may be practiced ; any extent of violence and usurpation 
in making the constitution; and no matter how badly made, and yet 
the State must come in. The proposition is monstrous. 

Now, sir, the subject-matter of the bill is suggestive; it presents a 
wide field for discussion. I do not intend to pursue it this morning; 
but I could not persuade myself to vote quietly on this question. I 
know that there are certain very insidious features about this measure— 
features which can be used with great effect before the populace. It 
may be alleged that we have voted against a bill which was to give the 
people the right to vote on their constitution. That would be true, to 
to some extent; but I answer that I hold a still more liberal doctrine 
towards the people of Kansas; I hold that they can make a constitution 
in any way they please; making it according to law and in regular 
form. I would give to the people of Kansas that measure of right 
which those whom I represent here exercised ; they made a constitution 
twice through their delegates; they have revised and amended that 
constitution through the agency of a popular ratification. It was com¬ 
petent for the people of Kansas to do the same thing ; and if those in 


6 


Kansas who claim to bo adverse to this slavery’article, who object most 
to this constitution, had exercised their high prerogative as freemen, 
probably we should have had no excitement on this occasion. But, sir, 
they did not perform the duty. In June, when they might have de¬ 
cided the question of slavery by electing delegates, they would not 

vote ; the “ bogus laws were in their way. In October, when the 

question of slavery was not involved, but when offices were at stake, 
they did vote. In December following, when they had a direct vote 

on the question of making Kansas a free or a slave State, they could 

not vote—it would not do to recognise the “ bogus laws” and the 
“ bogus convention.” But a few days afterwards, v T hen it was a ques¬ 
tion of gaining the local offices, they rushed to the polls and elected 
the officers under what they termed the “ Lecompton swindle.” There 
is the source of the trouble ; and as this issue stands, the most that those 
on the other side can make out of it would be (taking their own ground) 
an issue between those who, through the forms of law, had abused to 
some extent, the right of suffrage, and those who had set themselves 
up against the use of that right; who had preferred other means ; who 
had not exercised the high functions of freemen under our laws and 
under our policy of government. They avowed that determination, 
and they adhered to it. There may have been fraud, and there may 
have been usurpation, to some extent, on the one hand. The best that 
can be said for the other was that it presented matured, persistent, 
and stupendous insubordination to the laws, if not rebellion to the gov¬ 
ernment —Which of these alternatives shall we take? I shall not, for 
ray part, cast a vote that will give success to those who have stood out 
persistently against the laws. 

It may be said, and it is said, that this constitution is not agreeable 
to the majority of’ the people. Well sir, I have searched in vain in the 
complicated histor.y of legislation on this subject for the instance in 
which that question- was distinctly raised and discussed! where it was 
claimed as a duty on the part of Congress to know that a majority of 
the people were for the form of government which they sent up to Con¬ 
gress. No such case could have arisen as to more than half the States 
heretofore admitted whose constitutions had not been submitted to popu¬ 
lar vote. No such question could have arisen in the case of the State 
of my venerable friend from Kentucky for that was declared in the 
Union a State before the form of government was made, not by the 
proclamation, I believe, but by act of Congress. That could not have, 
been an ascertained fact in regard to Florida. No member of Congress 
as I understand the history of that case., could have known whether the 
people preferred the constitution of Florida or not. Why not ? I 
shall show. In 1838, the people of Florida held a convention, and 
made a constitution. They submitted it, it is true, to the ratification of 
the people, and, as I learn the history of it, a majority was only found 
by throwing out certain districts on the ground of informality. That 
constitution was sent up here. It was filed away irr the archives of the 
Senate legislative department. There it lay, cobwebbed and dusted 
over, for six long years. When it became necessary to bring in Iowa 
as a State, these musty papers were drawn from their solitude, and 


7 


on them Florida was made a State. Who would say that the-people 
who held that convention, and voted on the constitution, still remained 
in Florida ? Who would say that in the six years which intervened, 
there wa^ not a large accession of population to the Territory of Florida ? 
There could have been no satisfactory evidence that the people of 
Florida approved that constitution; no man could have known that it 
embodied their will. I only present these historical facts for the pur¬ 
pose of showing that the doctrine that Congress must know that a con¬ 
stitution embodies the will of a majority of the people before we have 
the right in propriety to admit the State, is a new doctrine. 

But Mr. President, I have spoken already much longer than I inten¬ 
ded to do. I rose for the purpose of confining myself to a very few 
points. I trust we are near the close of this angry debate. For one- 
I am free to say to the Senate and to the country, that I am tired of 
this topic of Kansas. I am tired of it in every sense. Especially am 
I weary of it, because I can see in it an element of growing mischief 
to this great, peaceful and, happy country of ours. Why it is I know 
~not; but it would seem to bo a dispensation of Providence that we are 
to have a very plague among us in the shape of this slavery question, 
living and growing as the nation advances; spreading out yearly, over¬ 
shadowing the whole country like some fatal upas, whose poisonous 
branches shade the very extremities and deal poison and death as the 
seasons roll by. I say, sir, that we are near the close of this debate 
and with it I trust this feud will be put to rest forever—this strife which 
is so certainly and so constantly poisoning the very channels of inter 
course between great divisions of this Union, severing the relations of 
the people who ought to be fraternal and affectionate, and abiding in a 
common faith. Sir, while I have my own notions of this measure, I do 
not cherish them with the tenacity that some do. I desire, however, to 
make the admission of Kansas and Minnesota, an exemplification of the 
truthfulness of the equity and wisdom of the democratic policy that 
Congress shall no longer deal with this vexed question ; but that it shall 
be left to the people of the Territories to settle for themselves; and 
they shall quietly become States, with or .without slavery, as their gov¬ 
ernment may provide at the time of admission. 


REMARKS 


I 


OF 

GEORGE F. PUGH, OF OHIO. 


Mr. President. The question before the Senate is not any longer 
on the passage of the Senate bill—it is on the passage of the House 
bill. A liberal construction of the resolutions of instruction which I 
have received from the general assembly of Ohio, and by which my 
vote was governed on the former occasion, would as much require me 
to vote against the House bill as the Senate bill. But the emergency 
is evidently one which the general assembly did not contemplate, and 
in which, therefore, I must consult my own judgment and their views, 
as far as I can gather them. According to my apprehension of what 
is due to this case, the House amendment is utterly inadmissible. It 
is a violation, as I understand it, of every principle on which Congress 
can admit a new State; of every safe precedent; and a violation of 
every principle heretofore professed by the democratic party of the 
United States. It is an unfair bill. It cannot make peace. It can 
make nothing but disturbance in Kansas, aud everywhere else. I 
shall endeavor to sustain these propositions as the reason why, certainly 
to my own entire and perfect satisfaction, I shall vote against that bill 
at every hazzard. 

The main idea of this proposition, or rather its pretension, is that 
the Congress of the United States remands the constitution of Kansas 
to a vote of the people; and what for ? Who authorized us to remand 
that constitution to a vote of the people ? Is it for us, the Congress 
of the United States, to dictate to the States how they shall form and 
ratify their constitutions ? Where have we obtained any such power 
as that ? If we can require it in the case of a new Statej we can re¬ 
quire it in the case of an old State. Our authority is the same over¬ 
all of them. The new States are to be admitted on an equal footing 
with the original States. It is for the people of Kansas, acting through 
the forms of law, to say in what manner their constitution shall be 
formed and ratified*, They have said it in every manner in which the 
people can speak. In the act of August, 1855, they instructed the 
territorial legislature to provide for calling a convention. 

That was the first act of the people. That legislature, in obedience 
to a direct vote of the people, and its members being also elected by 
the people, proceeded to form a law and to enact it providing for the 
assembling of a convention and the election of delegates. They ex¬ 
pressly omitted any provision requiring the constitution to be submitted 



9 


to a popular vote ; and when the governer returned the bill without 
his signature, on the express ground that it contained no such provis¬ 
ion, the representatives of the people in the territorial legislature, 
speaking for the people, passed it over his veto, and declared by a 
two-thirds vote in each house that the constitution should be submitted 
to the people or not, as the convention itself might choose. 

Under that charter, in full view of all these circumstances, with a 
full knowledge of the fact that the delegates about to be elected and 
about to be assembled in convention had perfect and full discretion 
whether they would or would not submit the constitution, the people 
chose those delegates. They confided to those delegates the -dis¬ 
cretion whether the constitution should or should not be submitted. 
Now, sir, we have had the act and deed of the people at every stage ; 
instructing the legislature to pass a law ; speaking through the legis¬ 
lature in the form of laws; speaking through*the legislature again, 
when Governor Geary’s veto was overruled ; speaking by the direct 
voice of the e people when the delegates were elected in June. This 
convention met. It is the impersonation of the people; it is the will 
of the people; it is the act and deed of the people; and it speaks 
the voice of the people. There is no other voice of the people; there 
can be no other, under our form of representative government. It 
seems to me a plain proposition ; but that it may not stand on my au¬ 
thority, I shall quote again what was said by Mr. Webster in his 
famous argument in the case of Luther vs. Borden: 

“Let us all admit that the people are sovereign. Jay said that in this country there 
■were many sovereigns and no subject. A portion of this sovereign power has been 
delegated to government, which represents and speaks the will of the people, as far as 
they chose to delegate their power. Congress have not all; the State governments have 
not all. The constitution of the United States does not speak of the* government; it 
says the United States. Nor does it speak of the State governments ; it says the States ; 
but it recognises governments as existing. The people must have representatives. In 
England the representative system originated, not as a matter of right, but because it 
was called by the King. The people complained sometimes that they had to send up 
burgesses. At last there grew up a constitutional representation of the people. In 
our system it grew up differently. It was because the people could not act in mass, and 
the right to choose a representative is every man’s portion of sovereign power. 

That is a sentence worthy of Mr. Webster: 

“The right to choose a representative is every man’s portion of sovereign power. 
Suffrage is a delegation of political power to some individual.” 

Again: 

“ I has been said by the opposing counsel that the people can get together, call them- 
, selves so many thousands, and establish whatever form of government they please. But 
others must have the same right. We have then a stormy South American liberty, sup¬ 
ported by arms to day, and crushed by arms to-morrow. Our theory places a beautiful 
face on liberty, and makes it powerful for good, producing no tumult. When it is neces¬ 
sary to ascertain the will of the people, the legislature must provide the means of as¬ 
certaining it. The constitution of the United States was established in this way. It 
was recommended to the States to send delegates to a convention. They did so. Then 
it was recommended that the States should ascertain the will of the people. Nobody 
suggested any other mode.”—7 Howard’s Reports, pp. 30-31. 

Now, sir, I say that the act and deed of the people has been made 
in every form known to the law up to the assembling of the convention 
atLecompton. Unless- you are to have what Mr. Webster properly 
calls a South American liberty, the liberty of those who arc the strong- 


10 


cat,. the liberty of those who choose to take arms in their hands instead 
of abiding a peaceful arbitration of their differences, there can be no 
other act and deed of the people than as expressed in the forms of law. 
I say this convention, when it was assembled, was the representative of 
the people of Kansas ; nobody else was authorized to speak for the peo¬ 
ple of Kansas ; and the convention was authorized to speak, and it was 
authorized as plainly as if it had been so written in the act providing 
for the election of the delegates, either to submit the constitution in 
whole, or in part, to popular ratification. 

Now, we not elected by the people of Kansas, not responsible to the 
people of Kansas, but elected by, and responsible to the people of the 
other States, propose to take into our hands the formation and regula¬ 
tion of all the political affairs of this new State. We propose to say 
to this convention that we will define their powers; that we will pre¬ 
scribe for them different powers from those which the people conferred. 
It seems tome that on no sound principle, with no just regard to the 
doctrine of a representative government, with no just regard to the re* 
served rights and sovereignty of the States, can Congress ever under¬ 
take to require the ratification of the constitution of a new State in a 
different manner from that which the people themselves have prescribed. 
I do not say it is merely intervention; for that has come to be a catch¬ 
word ; I say it is trampling under foot the sovereignty and the rights 
of the States. If you admit Kansas into the Union at all, you must 
admit her on an equal footing with the original States, and you must 
do nothing with her, or to her, that you would not do to any State 
already in the Union. 

But we are referred to the act of the last Congress preparatory to 
the admission of Minnesota, and we are told that is a precedent which 
elicited no dispute in Congress. It elicited no dispute, because it at¬ 
tracted no attention. I observe, by a reference to the Congressional 
Globe, that that bill, in its present shape, passed the other House under 
the operation of the previous question, without ever having been print¬ 
ed. It was brought into the House at the last hour as an amendment 
to a former bill, and having been offered and hastily read, by the dis¬ 
pensation of the previous question it was put through that house. I 
think we debated it a w r eek on the provision for alien suffrage ; but I 
did not hear a single senator, either for the bill or against it, make the 
least allusion to the fact that it required the constitution of that State 
to be submitted to a vote of the people. I do not know how many 
senators were, aware of that provision. Perhaps the senator from 
Illinois was ; I was not. I did not know there was any such provision 
in the bill until long after the adjournment of Congress. If I had 
known it, and a motion had been made to strike it from the bill, 1 
should have voted to strike it out of the bill, for I w T ould have required 
of Minnesota nothing more than had been required in former times of 
other States. That is the only case to be found in all the legislation 
of Congress, from the earliest times, in which we have required the 
constitution of a State to be submitted to a vote of the people. It is a 
case that passed without discussion; it is a case that passed where 
there was no debate in cither house on the question; and I certainly 
need not tell an assembly of a gentlemen, a majority of whom are law- 


yers, that no case is authority upon any question that was not argued 
at the time of the decision. 

But, sir, even the Minnesota case is not a precedent for this amend¬ 
ment. In the Minnesota case we substituted ourselves for the territo¬ 
rial legislature ; we called on the people to elect their delegates, sub¬ 
ject to certain general provisions. In this case the people of Kansas 
have chosen their delegates under totally different provisions, under a 
direction to them to submit the constitution or not, as they pleased; 
those delegates have met, their work is complete; and now we are ask¬ 
ed not to prescribe an original charter, but to violate the charter which 
those delegates received directly from the people. That case, there¬ 
fore, does not warrant this amendment. Then, on what ground is it that 
wc are asked to remand the constitution of Kansas to a vote of the peo¬ 
ple ? Whence comes the suggestion that the convention which met in 
Kansas was not as legal as the convention which met in Ohio, or in Ill¬ 
inois, or in Missouri, or in any other of the States which have already 
been admitted into the Union, and none of which submitted their first 
constitutions to a vote of the people ? On what pretext is founded the 
argument that we must not receive this constitution ? It is said there 
was a vote taken on the 4th of January, 1858, in which ten thousand 
majority was given against the constitution. Very well, sir; but was 
that a legal or an illegal vote ? I think it was an illegal vote ; I think 
it has no legal consequence whatever; I think it was simply a signifi¬ 
cation of many people, if they were duly qualified, that they wanted a 
change of the constitution, but they did not express it in the proper form 
and those who were opposed to a change being under no obligation to 
speak on that day, we cannot even arrive at any moral result, much less 
a legal one, from that vote. But I will take gentlemen on their own 
ground. Let us say that it was a legal vote—let us say that it was a 
full vote for the adoption or rejection of the constitution—then, if tho 
constitution was rejected, it is at an end: and by what right do you set it 
on its feet again and send it back for another ratification? If there be 
any force in the pretext that the vote taken in January upon the adop¬ 
tion or rejection of the constitution under the authority of the territo¬ 
rial legislature was legal, it shows that the constitution is at an end, and 
so much of the House amendment as proposes to recognise the consti¬ 
tution or set it up again for any purpose is a clear infraction of the will 
of the people of Kansas. It cannot stand on either leg therefore. 

But, sir, that is not the worst of it. This House amendment does not 
in truth, refer the constitution of Kansas back to the people of Kansas. 
Who are the people of Kansas—I mean the people authorized to vote 
for or against this constitution ? The constitution defines them. One 
part of the constitution was submitted to the people ; one part was rat¬ 
ified by every argument which men can receive—I mean the seventh 
article. That not only passed the convention, but it passed the vote of 
the people ; and who were they ? The constitution tells us : 

n At which election the constitution framed by this convention shall be submittdd to 
all the white male inhabitants of the Territory of Kansas in the said Territory upon that 
day, and over the age of twenty one years, for ratification or rejection.” 

They are the people of Kansas; they are the people defined by the 


12 


constitution of Kansas; they are the body of electors to ratify or re¬ 
ject the constitution ; and we have no right to substitute any other body 
of electors greater or less than that. Is the seventh article to be over¬ 
turned by the vote of a larger or a smaller number than provided there ? 
If so, we might as well unmake the whole constitution of Kansas. To 
whom does this amendment remit it ? It provides : 

“Sec. 4. Ancl be it further enacted That in the election hereby authorized all white 
male inhabitants of said Territory over the age of twentj’-one years, who are legal vo¬ 
ters under the laws of the Territory of Kansas, and none others, shall be allowed to 
vote.” 

What is the qualification for a voter under the territorial laws of Kan¬ 
sas? That he shall be a citizen of the United States, and have resided 
six months in the Territory. 

Mr. Green. That is not all. It also says that he must never 
have interfered, or been convicted of having interfered, with the execu¬ 
tion of the fugitive-slave law. If so, he is disqualified. 

Mr. Pugh. Better yet. There is a test law; and gentlemen who 
have been clamoring about test laws for two years are absolutely re-en¬ 
acting them by act of Congress. But my attention was directed to the 
other point—the voters under the territorial law are to be citizens of 
the United States who have resided six months in the territory. When 
the people of Kansas came to provide for the election of delegates to 
the constitutional convention, they considered that too narrow a basis 
of suffrage, and they allowed any man to vote who was a citizen of*the 
United States, and had resided three months in the Territory. You re 
mit this constitution by the House amendment to a body of electors 
more contracted and less liberal not only than the constitution itself 
provides, but less liberal and more narrow than the people of Kansas, 
through their legislature, provided in the election of delegates that form¬ 
ed the constitution; and that is popular sovereignity, that is remitting 
the constitution back to ascertain if it be the act and deed of the peo¬ 
ple ! You first define the people ; you pick out certain men ; you en¬ 
franchise some and disfranchise others; you pick your tribunal; you 
pack your jury ; and then you talk about a true verdict! And that is 
done by Congress, and done in defiance of the constitution of Kan¬ 
sas, and in defiance of the will of the people of Kansas, as expressed 
in the act under which this convention was elected and assembled. 

It is to secure the rejection of the constitution ? No man can pretend 
that it is to try the question over again; no man can pretend that it is 
remitting the constitution to the tribunal whence it originated. I say it 
is packing the jury for the purpose of having the constitution rejected; 

I do not say that is the purpose of those who voted for it, but I say it 
is the inevitable consequence of the amendment. 

Again, sir, the people of Kansas, speaking through their delegates in 
this convention, thought it eminently proper that that great vexed ques¬ 
tion which had disturbed the Territory for four years, which had distub- 
cd the whole Union for four years—that great question in reference to 
which the whole legislation of the organic act of May 30,1854, was sup¬ 
posed to afford a complete settlement—should be seperated out of the 
body of the constitution and put to a separate vote. Ilow is it with 


13 


this amendment ? You require every anti-slavery man per force, to vote 
against the constitution—and that, too, in defiance of the mode of sub¬ 
mission provided in the constitution. Any man who is willing to vote 
for the whole of this constitution, except the seventh article, is compell¬ 
ed by the House amendment to vote against the whole of it. He does 
not have an opportunity to vote for or against the seventh article. He 
is compelled to vote against the whole constitution. This is the work 
of the gentlemen who complain of the vote on the 21st of December. 
They said no man could then vote for or against the seventh article unless 
he voted for the constitution. I say that, under this House amendment, 
no man can vote for or against the seventh article unless he votes against * 
the whole constitution; the thing is impossible; and therefore I say the 
amendment is framed in such a manner, whatever the purposes of its au¬ 
thors, that it must inevitably secure the rejection of this constitution. 

Then, why not reject it at once? Why travel around all this path? 
Why pursue this sinuous track? Come to the question. If you say it 
is not the will of the people; if you claim the right to go behind all the 
forms through which the people can speak, and reject the constitution, 
reject it; let us have an end of it, and let us see whether there is no 
other method by which we can bring Kansas into the Union; but do 
not let us play fast and loose. Do not let us profess to submit this 
constitution to the ordeal of a fair vote, when the vote itself is so ar¬ 
ranged that it must inevitably be rejected. It would be rejected any¬ 
how under the circumstances; because of the last alternative of this 
bill. If you had put the ten commandments to a vote under this bill 
they would be rejected; and why? The alternative is giving in the 
House bill that, if this constitution is rejected, then there shall be 
another convention ; and every man in the Territory of Kansas, in all 
the counties, who is an aspirant for membership in the new convention, 
and we know that there are always about twenty candidates for every office 
to which one man can possibly be elected—all this body of candidates; 
all the outs, who are always more than the ins, arc interested to defeat 
the constitution, in order to take the chances of being elected to a new 
convention, and in order to take the chances of being elected to the 
legislature, and to the State offices, which may be elective under the new 
constitution. 

I do not understand it to be pretended in this amendment, as the 
Senator from Illinois said, that the Lecompton constitution is not the 
act and deed of the people. That is not pretended; but it is -said 
that: 

“Inasmuch as it is greatly disputed whether the constitution framed at Lecompton, 
on the 7th day of November last, and now pending before Congress, was fairly made, or 
expressed the will of the people of Kansas.” 

It might be the act and deed of the people, and not express their 
will. If I grant a man a power of attorney to draw a check or a note 
for me, he may draw it, but it may not be my will; yet I have to pay 
it. He has a proper warrant of attorney to do the act, because I au¬ 
thorized him to act for me. It may not be my will; but it is my act 
and my deed. Now, sir, as to the last provision of this amendment. 


14 


Having submitted this constitution in such a form as inevitably to se¬ 
cure its rejection; having submitted it, not to the people, but to a 
packed jury, selected in defiance of the law of the convention, and in 
defiance of the law of the legislature that called the convention ; having 
selected out the body of electors to which we remand it; having, in ad¬ 
dition, required every man who is against the institution of slavery in 
the new State to vote down the whole constitution; and having offered 
all the temptations to ambition which can be offered in the shape of 
new offices as an inducement to vote down the constitution : what is to 
come next ? I take it as positively certain that under this bill any 
constitution would be rejected. None could pass such an an ordeal; 
for even if these candidates approved it, they would say, “We will 
make it over again after we get the offices.” What is to come next? 
Then it is said there is to be a new constitutional convention. I think 
we have had constitutional conventions enough in Kansas, a Territory 
of about fifty thousand people. She has had three constitutional con¬ 
ventions in three years. We have had Topeka and Lecompton, - and 
this new one, Minneola now in full blast. They are the hardest people 
to suit that I ever knew. No, sir; I am willing to take of these three 
constitutions that which is the most formal and the most regular. I 
am willing, if Congress requires it, that a new convention of delegates 
shall be assembled in Kansas to pass upon this constitution, for that is 
the form which they have provided, and that would be granting v them 
a new trial. But if they fail, I am against any more constitutions from 
Kansas. Let her stay until she gets the proper population. I voted 
for the Toombs’ bill with a proviso, on that ground. I only assented 
to it for the sake of peace. I did not believe it was a good precedent 
to bring a State into the Union with so small a population ; and I say 
now, if this Lecompton constitution, which is the only regular and legal 
one, is to be rejected in every shape and form, let us dismiss the whole 
subject out of Congress, and let Kansas wait until she gets a popula¬ 
tion sufficient, according to the ratio prescribed, for one representative. 

But, sir, this amendment authorizes four gentlemen to exercise dis¬ 
cretion unlimited in time as well as in manner, the governor, the secre¬ 
tary, the speaker of the council, and the speaker of the house of repre¬ 
sentatives, although two of them are out of office. At an indefinite 
period in the future, at any time extending throughout the whole terri¬ 
torial life of Kansas, these four persons, two of whom, as I have said- 
have ceased, or will soon cease, to be officers, are to have the power of 
calling upon the people to elect delegates, of providing who shall be 
the officers to superintend the election, and when the delegates shall be 
elected, and when they shall be assembled in convention ; and that con¬ 
vention is to make the constitution, and it is to be a perfect constitu¬ 
tion from the start. If they should pass this railroad ordinance which 
has given some senators so much trouble, we have no power over it, pro¬ 
vided they make it part of their constitution. It is never to come back 
to us ; the President is to look at it, and to proclaim the State admitted. 

I know there are cases, very good precedents too, in which a consti¬ 
tution has been submitted to Congress, and Congress has been sufficient- 


15 


ly satisfied of its republican character, but has remanded it to a conven¬ 
tion to alter son^e one or other of its provisions,.perhaps its boundaries, 
perhaps some clause which was supposed to infringe the constitution of 
the United States; but wherever Congress has remanded a constitution 
in that way, to be altered or amended in some particular, and after¬ 
wards, on compliance with that condition, to admit the State into the 
Union on proclamation, Congress has had some sight at the constitu¬ 
tion. I never knew of their authorizing a constitution to be formed 
blindly as this bill does. It is for Congress to admit a State, not the 
President. We have the right to require that certain provisions shall 
be complied with,' and upon that to trust the people ; but I am not so 
willing to trust the people of Kansas in their present condition: and 
therefore that provision would be evidently objectionable. What will 
be the result of it? We shall have discharged ourselves from all con¬ 
nexion with the subject, and if the constitution to be framed should be 
like this constitution, against which one party protests, which one party 
charges with frauds, with outrages, vdth perjuries of every description, 
what shall we be told then ? We shall hear from the Senator frohi 
Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] again, that Congress has disclaimed the right¬ 
ful jurisdiction over the Territories, and that, therefore, all these ca¬ 
lamities have occurred. No, sir, let us meet the direct question. If 
you choose to admit Kansas under the Senate bill, admit her. If you 
choose to admit her, remanding her constitution to a new convention of 
delegates, that, as a last resort, would be infinitely better than the 
House bill. If you will do neither of these, then reject her; or, if 
you must have her in the Union now, pass the Toombs bill again, or 
some other bill like it. 

For the reasons which I have stated, I am opposed to this hybrid. 
I am opposed to it in every shape and form. In my judgment it can¬ 
not make peace. It is so arranged that it will secure the inevitable re¬ 
jection of this constitution without any reference to its merits, and, on 
the other hand, it precipitates the people of Kansas, who have now come 
to some condition of peace and order, into a new field of anarchy, 
where there will be no opportunity for us, by any subsequent measures 
of peace and conciliation, to rectify whatever may have been done 
amiss. As I said before, it is the most objectionable proposition to me 
that has ever yet been submitted to Congress. Believing that it will 
secure no peace ; believing that it will repeat tenfold the anarchy, and 
disturbance, and civil war which lately prevailed in that Territory ; be¬ 
lieving that it violates every principle of the party to which I belong ; 
that it violates every principle of representative government; that it 
asserts and assumes for the government of the United States a power 
which it clearly does not possess under the constitution ; that it is a fa¬ 
tal overthrow of the rights and the sovereignty of the States, I am pre¬ 
pared, for one, to vote against it, and to take whatever consequences 
there may be in store for that vote. 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 






9 





> 
























































